December 31, 2003

From time to time, in articles, speeches and elsewhere, I have stated and restated: Say something worth talking about.

When you do that, it gives life to your Web pages, emails, newsletters and ads. Say something interesting or noteworthy online, and the network starts to hum. News travels. The viral element kicks in.

So, congratulations to the folks at BanCruelFarms.org for the creation of their flash animation, The Meatrix. It's amusing, engaging, informative, troubling...and it's an ad.

If only all ads showed that kind of imagination.

Marc Orchant likes to call marketers "storytellers." I love this title; it reminds me that customers respond to stories, not lists of features and benefits. Good stories are viral. Good stories transform potential customers into evangelists... Like me and Nick, posting the link to the Meatrix on our blogs.

December 30, 2003

In an email dialogue with Tom at Sandbox Wisdom, we were debating the use of the term "internal branding." Tom posits that internal and external branding is one and the same thing:

The best seem to just "get it." They know that every employee impacts—in some way—how the world encounters their company's promise and personality. And so, they're obsessed with the details. They know that every action helps build or weaken their brand. They're intuitively aware that their company's brand is the strategic differentiation of their promise and personality, AND the inspired actions of a team of people to make it happen. It's the actions of their entire team, which informs choices by customers, employees, investors, et al.

So let me ask again: why the brand distinction? I'm really not sure, so I say . . . "Internal Branding" be damned. Distinctions like that tend to confuse, more than clarify. Divide, rather than unite. Plus, there's really no such thing as an "internal" brand anyway. Just as there's no such thing as "nature" separate from "man." We—you, me, the air, water, trees, et al.—are an inseparable whole. Sure, creating the distinction allows us to better categorize and understand it, but it also allows us to exploit it for our own gain.

I'm so glad for Tom's comment because I hadn't really looked at it this way before. I'm a big proponent of the ecology of business -- the interconnectedness of things -- so I really don't like arbitrary distinctions. They do tend to divide related ideas into distinct little boxes. Easier for us to manage (which is why we like our little boxes) but hide the big picture. Conversely, as Chris Lawer and I debated a few weeks ago about the semantics of customer-centricity vs. buyer-centricity: "Since words are abbreviations for concepts, new concepts require the use of new or different word choices."

So I do believe that the term 'internal branding' has its place. Successful companies don’t need internal branding because they’re already living the brand. The challenge comes when we’re dealing with a company that doesn’t start out with this holistic mindset. They’re not born with a well-defined promise of value… so in a corporate mid-life crisis we (marketers, agencies, brand consultants) must work backwards from identifying customer needs to defining the best brand promise that the company has the capabilities to focus on. The next step is integrating/aligning internally before communicating externally. In this scenario, we need to do ‘internal branding’ (ie… create a new culture/mindset aligned with the newly defined brand promise) before creating a new ad campaign. So…. What do we call that process? Is internal branding the best description? I'm certainly open to ideas.

On a tangental note: I’ve had a strong desire to eliminate the word ‘brand’ altogether because it’s so ambiguous. It’s become the big buzzword but there’s no consensus on the definition. For example, it really bugs me when a design firm says they do branding. No, they do logo design. That’s not branding. But… that’s another rant for another day.

To expand on Chris Lawer's thought on plentitude in modern society, here's an exerpt from today's Reveries called "Curbed Choices" that discusses the customer trend of "Enough already!"

Christopher Lee, a former Reebok creative director, just opened a shop in a converted warehouse in the Islington section of London. Called Microzine, the idea is to "dose consumer fatigue with the tonic of quirky but well-chosen goods." Says Christopher: "Everyone's got the same product, and consumers are fed up. They want something exciting and they want it edited down." He says he understand this because he, himself, hates to shop!

Barry Schwartz, a Swarthmore psych professor and author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, says Christopher represents growing numbers of consumers who "have begun defecting from the culture of shopping, surfeited with information and alienated by what increasingly seems like the mere illusion of choice." He explains the problem this way: "You've got an economy that is 90 percent driven by consumers and reliant on convincing people to keep buying stuff ... You also have a culture in which people are saturated, looking for ways to simplify their lives and to reduce time spent trying to figure out what to buy." Or, as Christopher Lee puts it: "If you buy a stereo, you don't want to see 400 stereos."

Times like this, it's tough to be a marketer. When our product is one of too many choices and it doesn't have a significant, meaningful point of difference, we've got a tough row to hoe. I'm glad to see this consumer trend of "Enough!" because it sends a strong message to management teams in every industry: focus and innovate, or die. Instead of coming up with the 400th model of TV, create Tivo. Instead of producing the nation's 400th coffee brand, launch Starbuck's. Instead of operating the 400th grocery store, Whole Foods.

I was musing on how marketers could earn their spot at the executive table to have more influence on core business decisions, break down silos, and impact internal stakeholders. I think the two primary ways are: measurable results and customer-driven innovation ideas (I'll deal with measurable results in a later post). Marketers have their fingers on the pulse of their customers. Marketers are driving customer research and have the ability to act as the voice of the customer in their organizations. When the marketing department chooses to drive customer-focused innovation (proactive) instead of simply selling whatever comes out of product development (reactive), that's when we come into our full power.

This power for too long has been held by sales and distribution channels -- especially in the B2B world -- who cry to management, "We need more options in our bag! We need lower prices!" And too often, management concedes... because sales is "closest to the customer, so they must know what customers want," when in fact sales just can't sell what they've got. Either the existing products don't really fit customer needs, or they're too similar to competitive products. The answer isn't to give customers more options, but less. The answer isn't to lower prices so customers will buy, but to come up with a simple, innovative solution to meet their needs... and customers won't hesitate to pull out their checkbooks.

It's time for marketers to recognize when prospective customers are oversaturated with choices. It's up to us to say "Enough!" before our customers do it for us. We are the bridge between customers and corporate decisions, and it's up to us to stop the madness.

Technology will always progress, allowing us to do more with less--breaking the laws of scarcity. And with the rapid adoption of technology, it's happening even faster.
So Seth's right: it's going to take smarter, more dedicated people to make real money, and the rest of the world is going to resort to operating on the razor-thin lines of zero profit due to perfect competition. What's really scarce? Wisdom. Courage. Honor. Relationships.

Ahhh. Those words are so scarce in our society and in general business that it's gratifying and nourishing to see them in print. Thanks, John, for the wonderful reminder.

John Moore at OurHouse posts an article on lack of employee motivation. A Gallup poll found that 80% of British workers lack any real commitment to their jobs, and there have been similar findings in the US. John comments:

I think (the findings) are a sad measure of the failure of marketing to create genuine engagement for stakeholders in organizations. What hope is there of a brand engaging customers if it can't engage its own workers?

I agree in principle with his comment, but I don't think that marketing has failed to create engagement for its stakeholders. The fact is, marketing is usually not allowed to participate in creating engagement for its stakeholders. The employee stakeholder is in HR's territory, and all too often the HR director/team is busy with paperwork and not with engagement. The other problem is that employee motivation is often at the bottom of management's priority list. A C-level client recently said to me, "Why should we motivate employees to do what they're already paid to do?" Ouch. Employee engagement happens during the brand-building process, when the brand promise is actively infused throughout the corporation by the entire leadership team.

John's right: it's impossible to engage customers without engaging employees first. Passion is infectious. Good brands are viruses. The key today is, how can marketers widen their sphere of influence within organizations to make sure the virus takes hold internally? I know of a few companies who are putting their training function under the Marketing umbrella; that's a good start, but it's usually done to make sure that the sales pitch matches the advertising pitch. I'm becoming fascinated with internal branding, because it's a prerequisite for good external branding. More posts on this topic to come...

Marketing communications agency Euro RSCG Worldwide has released forecasts for year 2004, drawing insights from ongoing research by the agency's S.T.A.R. (Strategic Trendspotting and Research) team and from a global panel of colleagues in 75 countries who report in regularly on local trends and information.
Nice to see Blogging mentioned as one of the key trends - and the hope that marketers realise its potential as a powerful medium of communication!

December 24, 2003

I received this story in my Inbox courtesy of Second Wind Network. What a wonderful reminder of the warmth, goodness and light that ought to characterize this season. Yes, there are always stories that float around the Internet this time of year, but this one really touched me in a sad yet joyful way and I wanted to share it with you. So whether you're celebrating Christmas, Hannukah, Rohatsu, Kwanzaa, or simply your own inner wisdom this month, I wish for you a holiday season filled with giving and gratitude, joy and peace.
- j

December 23, 2003

For those of you who have followed my agonizing experience trying to get a replacement QuickBooks CD, I still have not received it. Apparently no one realized (or bothered to check) that the warehouse had no CDs in stock, and therefore the thrice-promised overnight package was never sent. When I called this morning (call #6) to explain the situation again, the rep put me on hold to speak with her supervisor. When she got back on the line, she informed me that they wouldn't be able to send me a CD until mid-January, but they'd be happy to give me a discount on a newer, in-stock version. So for a mere $100, I could get my software tomorrow, 3 weeks after it was requested. Completely unacceptable! When I then spoke with the supervisor, he was resistant to sending me a CD for free... until I mentioned the fact that I'm publishing this entire story in my business weblog and that Intuit was likely going to lose not only my business, but a lot of other potential business. He suddenly became very nice, mentioned that he had some CDs (newer version) handy right in his cabinet, and he'd be happy to overnight it for tomorrow a.m. delivery, for free. Ahhh, the power of connected consumers. This is just the tip of the iceberg; I can't wait to see how weblogs transform business in the next few years.

I discovered this very comprehensive list of business blogs in the archives of MarketingWonk. It hasn't been recently updated, but it's a good resource. I like to find other business blogs to see how they balance professional content with a personal writing style. I just found SandboxWisdom by Tom Asacker this morning and I really enjoy Tom's breezy tone of voice combined with real gems of insights. I'm hoping that he can follow the same path as Seth Godin's blog, which (as MarketingWonk puts it) "has gotten a lot better from when it started and was little more than self-promotion." Not that self-promotion is a bad thing, but the lack of links, trackbacks, comments, etc. makes it rather sterile one-way communication. Let's not even call it a blog, as there's no opportunity to reap the real benefits of blogging. I've been continually amazed at the quality of connections and friendships that I've formed online including David St. Lawrence and Chris Lawer. What a great community this is. I look forward to getting to know more of my fellow bloggers in the coming year.

December 22, 2003

Had a blast in New York this weekend, despite the freezing cold weather and swarms of tourists and shoppers. But of course, the primary factor of enjoyment while travelling-- at least for me -- is who I'm with. The trip was one of my Christmas gifts from the guy I'm dating, who just moved to DC for business (and when he starts keeping his blog up-to-date with his cool ideas, I'll include a link!). While we were in NY he gave me another gift: an Xbox, complete with an 'Enter the Matrix' game and an Xbox Live kit so we can play against each other while living in different cities. Earlier this evening I hooked it all up and started playing the Matrix... what a hoot. The last home video game I played was probably my Atari Space Invaders 20+ years ago. They sure have come a long way!

John Porcaro, who's on the Xbox marketing team at Microsoft, would probably confirm that a 41-year old CTO and a 34-year old female marketing consultant are not typical representatives of the Xbox target audience... or maybe so, depending on how they define their market. I just find this a great real-life example of why demographic target-audience profiling is so woefully insufficient. When we place logical but arbitrary boundaries on our target audience by age, income, etc. we miss out on some interesting ideas and applications for our products and services. Conversely, profiling customers by mindset can open up some new doors.

Two years ago while working for a regional phone company, I reviewed some very interesting research by the Network of City Business Journals called 'Getting into the Minds of Small Business Owners.' It identified 6 psychographic segments based on Motivation (like Money, Fame, Self-Reliance, etc.), Personality Traits (Competitive, Analytical, Helpful, etc) and Management Skills (Delegating, Organizing, Technology Capability, etc). By comparing the different mindsets, it became fairly easy to see the types of business owners that would be most receptive to my company's services... and this in turn was used to develop specific messages to appeal to those groups. Much more useful than the company's previous target audience classification: business owners with 4 to 24 business lines. If you market to small businesses, you can probably get a copy of this insightful research from your BJ rep.

Also, if you're interested in delving deep into how your customers think, pick up a copy of "How Customers Think" by Gerald Zaltman. Classic account planning how-to book, although it gets a bit creepy in a psychological, mind-control sort of way. I read most of it to and from NY, so I'm looking forward to finishing it.

So to wrap up my ramblings: Sure, there's a point of diminishing returns on how far you go with segmentation. If there are only 5 single men in America over 40 who would purchase an Xbox, then this segment certainly doesn't justify a new marketing initiative. However, I think it's worth the effort to break out of our self-defined limitations to learn -- to as great an extent as possible -- who's using our products, for what purpose and for what emotional benefit. Who knows, we might discover an opportunity to create a new marketing strategy, or even a whole new category.

December 18, 2003

I'm headed off to spend the weekend in NYC... this will be my first time to visit during Christmas, and it's also the first time since 9/11. I'll miss my new addiction (blogging) but I'll be back online on Monday! Cheers, J

I just received some of the best advice I've had in a long time from fellow blogger David St. Lawrence. His suggestion to reveal more of my personality on my blog (since that's what blogs are for!) addressed something I'd been thinking about for some time, both for my offline and online world. I often point prospective clients, as well as members of presentation audiences, to my blog as an example of the many-to-many online trend, plus to show how bloggers are often negating the sanitized marketing messages of corporations. So, it hasn't been easy for me to walk that fine line between being professional while 'unsanitizing' my own message and letting my own authenticity shine through. But this is nothing new... in the real world, I find I have the often have the same challenge. As an only-child military brat, I grew up into a very independent and somewhat difficult-to-know adult. As I mentioned to David, I think I'm going to learn more through blogging than I'd ever expected!

So if a corporate brand is an idea in the minds of customers, then a personal brand is the idea of me in the minds of everyone I come in contact with. So I've been asking myself, what is my own personal brand? And I realize now that I can't stop at simply defining my brand; for if I keep half my brand attributes hidden, then the idea formed in the minds of others won't reflect my true nature. I think this goes back to honesty, transparency and authenticity in the corporate branding world, of which so many companies are afraid. And many (probably most) individuals are as well.

I like the recent post on BrandAutopsy on Executives are Blogging. My theory is that executives are concerned about the same thing as I am: they're so tightly linked with their companies, they're apprehensive about letting personality and personal viewpoints shine through without somehow tainting the corporate brand. And yet some of the best brands are those where personality does shine through. Far from tainting the brand, quirky and offbeat and honest personalities make the brand more human, more approachable (ike Virgin and Southwest Airlines).

And as I read back through this post, I realize that I've been writing for too many years with my business hat on... I think I've forgotten how to be quirky! Bear with me, this will be an evolution...

December 17, 2003

Since it's the Christmas season, I've been thinking about giving. I'd asked a fellow blogger some basic questions including how to build traffic to my site. However, I realized before he responded that it's just like classic branding: create and give value first to invoke the law of attraction. Whether we want to attract customers to a company or visitors to a site, attraction happens when we give value first. What goes around, comes around. In the blog world, that's creating great content and linking out to other's sites. In networking, it's giving free advice and leads. In the corporate world, it's creating and delivering on a promise of value. It's the same scalable principle. I've worked with clients who want to generate sales first in order to fund value creation, but that's like wanting the cake before you bake it. The law of causality won't allow it. On a related note, I really liked this blog tip called "link unto others" on Living Room, since it's a win/win/win for the blogger, the reader and the source:

Links make blogs different than paper. When you see something interesting online, link to it. Something useful, memorable, fascinating? Link, link, link. Each link is a vote. Your body of links represents your interests. Google understands links more than words. So does Technorati. So links become the gravity that attract like-minded people to your blog.
After all, if you write something that provokes thought, changes people's lives, you'd want others to point your way too.
This golden rule of blogging is part of what makes the blogosphere a community.
It also is part of what makes blogging like journalism or science. Good bloggers cite their sources by linking to them. This helps people trust that you've not only done your homework, but that you've made it easy for your visitors to do theirs.
So the next time you write a post, before you hit that publish button, ask yourself "Is it linky enough?"

Thought I should clarify my earlier post re: community... it's not an effective brand-building tool without the fundamental customer experience supporting it. An online discussion board hosted by a company that lacks loyal and passionate customers does not a community make. Build the brand experience first, then facilitate the community. It can't be created in a vaccuum.

Linda Eder: Christmas Stays the Same. Her voice is amazing... similar to Barbra Streisand (sp?). I highly recommend it. I'm finally getting into the Christmas spirit; this is the first time I've listened to Christmas music this season! My cats are helping me wrap Christmas presents that I MUST mail today...

We could debate all day long on the most powerful branding tool, but after reading this article on Reveries about the power of community, I think this gets my vote. The article features companies like Saturn, eBay and Starbucks (Paul, I expect a blog post on this one!) and it's a good read. We already know that customers are our best sales force... when they're rallied together into a community, their individual powers are combined into a brand-building force to be reckoned with.

December 16, 2003

I'm pleased to see a new US-based brand blog on the scene... BrandAutopsy by John Moore (the US version) of Whole Foods, my favorite grocery store, and Paul Williams of Starbuck's. They wrote some great posts as guest bloggers on the Fast Company site, so I'm looking forward to some friendly branding debates!

Vinnie was the last customer service rep I spoke with and he seemed to have taken care of everything. Credited my $20 for the CD and gave me free shipping. He then apologized that it took so long, but he had to call customer service to find out how to order my CD-ROM... turns out he was in tech support. So even though I got transferred to the wrong department FOUR TIMES (that's got to be a record), Vinnie felt bad about all my transfers and sought the answers to help me himself. Vinnie just restored my faith in Intuit (not really, but I feel better).

If you hadn't read my first post on Intuit, here's a quick recap: I called Intuit last week because I lost my CD-ROM and needed a new one sent (I should have been able to download the software from their web site, but that's another story). They charged me $20 plus shipping for a new CD and told me I'd get it in 5 days. That was 8 days ago.

I called to track the shipment. The CSR told me that the CD had been ordered on the 8th and that I should get it 'any day.' I then asked if it had actually shipped on the 8th and he didn't know. He transferred me to someone who had access to that information. I spent 5 minutes with the next person who determined that it was shipped to the wrong address... but he couldn't send another CD because he was in the Payroll department. He transferred me to someone else who would be able to help me. I waited on hold (again) and told my story to the 3rd person, who then informed me that he couldn't help me because he's in Technical Support... but he'd be happy to transfer me to someone who could help me. I'm now on hold with the 4th person who, it seems, can actually send out a new CD to the correct address for delivery tomorrow. This has got to be the worst customer experience I've ever had. What a colossal waste of time.

Just thought I'd share the antithesis of the buyer-centric philosophy for your enjoyment. I'm still on hold.

The Volvo article inspired me to write about this article that Chris Lawer forwarded to me on women in the workplace:

Research by Catalyst, an advisory organisation for working women, found that 60 per cent of middle-level American career women bail out of their jobs... 'Women can make it to the top if they want to - the barriers are down,' says Sahar Hashemi, co-founder of the Coffee Republic chain. 'A lot of women are walking away from corporations and institutions because they want to live and work differently, not because anyone is forcing them out.

Today's fast-track women are a time bomb. Disenchanted by the structures and limitations of most organisations, full of self-confidence and with a wider menu of choices than men, a majority of them will just walk away from their big jobs if the big jobs don't change. Their mass rejection of organisations is a form of direct action that's forcing the whole landscape of work to change. Tired of waiting for change, the new generation is forcing the pace, and creating a new power paradigm that affects the entire workforce. Flexible working, for example, is a female-driven agenda that was unheard of 10 years ago. Now 26 per cent of women and 18 per cent of men work flexibly - and that's just the official figures.

Being a female entrepreneur myself, I appreciated the article on both a personal and professional level. Corporate brands -- like Volvo -- are realizing that to attract female customers, they have to think and act in a way that's appealing to women. And that starts with empowering their own female employees to have more of an impact within their respective corporations. To be buyer-centric, you must first be employee-centric. The term "stakeholder-centric" is becoming more and more appealing to me, because there's an inexorable link between internal and external constituencies.

From a personal brand perspective, women are beginning to be more authentic and follow their own internal compass rather than to conform and react to those around them. Their actions are directed by their unique personal brand. And by living a more authentic life, these women are inspiring those around them to do the same. I'm excited to see the societal changes to which women will birth in the coming years.

This is a marvelous example of building a product using customer input up front, rather than simply testing an idea after it's been created. Thank you, Volvo, for having the courage to break out into completely new territory. Here's the article from Reveries in its entirety:

Volvo, the Swedish carmaker that's owned by Ford, wants to "shake up the male dominated culture" within its company, the car industry, and society as a whole, as reported by Noelle Knox in USA Today. And so, a year ago, ceo Hans-Olov Olsson earmarked $3.3 million dollars and allotted 15 months to a temporary team of about 120 employees (about 100 of them women) to create a concept car for women, now set to be unveiled at the Geneva Auto Show, http://www.salon-auto.ch, in March 2004. With three months to go, the project already appears to be a huge success: With three months to go, the project already appears to be a huge success: "When you talk to the guys in the Concept Center, they never had a concept project that's been so on time and orderly as this one," says Lena Ekelund, an assistant project manage. She says the women tend to talk a lot in meetings but that typically leads to quick consensus. Men are not permitted to make any decisions about this car.

The team began by surveying 400 Volvo colleagues, and discovered that about three-quarters of them raised the same issues: "Storage, parking, ergonomics and maintenance." The team's solutions were anything but half-measures. First of all, there's no hood on this car, because most women never lift it anyway. The front end is instead designed to be lifted by a mechanic, whose oil change services are required only at 31,000 mile intervals -- and the need for it is sent by "wireless message to a local service center" that will then call up the owner to schedule an appointment. The car has no gas cap, instead featuring a race-car-style "roller-ball valve" where "the nozzle goes in through an opening." The windshield washer fluid goes in right next to it. It "has wide, gull-wing doors" affording easy access, and the rear seats "fold-up," theater style, for extra storage space.

The emergency brake is electric and the headrest has a channel in it for ponytails! Seat covers are machine washable and come in a variety of styles. On the outside, the car "has dirt repellent paint and glass." I want that. And yes, the car can parallel park by itself and also tells the driver whether a parking space is big enough for the car. If the car goes on the market, it is expected to sell in the $30,000 to $50,000 range. Volvo can't be blamed for expecting it to be a hit: Women accounted for 65 percent of all cars purchased in the U.S. last year, and although Volvo, http://www.volvocars.com, claims just one percent of the U.S. market, it attracts 53 percent of all female buyers of luxury cars. Hans-Olav Olsson, the ceo, sees a larger mission, however. He says he hopes Volvo will inspire young women to want to "work with cars ... and work with Volvo. If we can achieve that," he says, "I am very happy. It works on the broader perspective for society and the car industry."

December 15, 2003

eBay has 100,000 new users on a per-day basis, and 120 million searches take place each day, with 7.4 million bids. These numbers are significant, and that means there's a lot of velocity that takes place at eBay. Marketers are trying to figure out what's the best way for them to tap into that dynamic environment...

It's very interesting to be able to turn to eBay as a reflection on pop culture itself and to see what items are selling at what prices, what's hot. Lots of marketers have realized that this is an opportunity to tap into that marketplace on the pulse level as well and learn from these individuals who are highly passionate about their interests and their affinities, and also to be able to build their own communities within eBay. That's one of the big learnings that I think will be taking place in the future -- understanding more about your customer on a one-to-one level, profiling your customer on behavior, not just demographics, and being able to learn more about what makes them come back to your product over and over again.

So eBay is positioning itself to corporations as the middleman not only to sell product, but also to facilitate customer learning. They're providing the feedback loop that's necessary for every brand to improve its value proposition. Compare that with a recent study by WebTrends and Drilling Down that found:

"...a surprising 52% of marketers recently surveyed online don’t currently measure customer retention. Only 28% look at repeat visit and purchase rates, only 16% segment customers based on the retention-specific metrics of frequency and latency, and only 3% do detailed cross-channel marketing analysis, according to the survey of more than 500 respondents.

Some 31% of those surveyed don’t measure the results of search marketing campaigns, while only 41% even measure click-through and general traffic. Only 16% measure web activity through to conversion, while only 11% have competed a detailed ROI analysis of campaigns including lifetime value of phrase by revenue.

“The web is in its early cycle and people are just beginning to understand the power of how it all works together,” says Drilling Down consultant Jim Novo. “Most companies are excited to be acquiring customers and doing it profitably. That’s what everyone has been focused on. But that doesn’t mean they`re allocating marketing money in the right place, because a lot of those customers might buy just one time."

These companies have absolutely no idea what they're doing right. Or wrong, for that matter. If they can't take the time to measure ROI on a campaign, you know they're not taking the time to learn why those customers buy, don't buy, or choose not to buy again. They're celebrating because they're "acquiring" customers profitably (see my rant on why that's impossible) when they may actually be delivering a sub-optimal customer experience. Hopefully the enormous influence of eBay will help spur companies along the the customer-learning path. We're not yet to real dialogue and partnership with customers, but we're moving in the right direction.

I posted a comment on the Fast Company blog a few days ago, but thought it would be useful to repost it here -- and no, not because I'm too lazy to write a new post; this was buried in the archives and I think it's an interesting topic. It was in response to a post by John Moore (VP Mkting at Whole Foods) about the recent cover story on WalMart:

As director of national marketing for a grocer, I read with great interest the Fast Company December cover story - "The Wal-Mart You Don't Know." As you know, Wal-Mart is single-handedly responsible for the drive to commoditization that is happening in the retail business. I love what Seth Godin said in his book Purple Cow that a low price strategy is the last resort of a marketer that is out of great ideas. Commoditization is all about exploiting the low price strategy.

The impact commoditization is having on the game of business is tremendous and Wal-Mart seems to be killing nearly everyone with their quest to deliver the lowest price possible.

I have a bit different view of commoditization. A company or brand is in commodity status when it is not offering enough value for customers to pay the asking price. Commodity companies must continually decrease their prices in order to maintain a revenue stream... in other words, they're not 'exploiting the low cost strategy'; they're the self-made victims of lack of value. I have worked with several telecom providers who are trapped in price wars because customers don't perceive any value difference between the various providers.

Conversely, there are many non-commodity companies who are pursuing a low-price strategy, and it's not due to a lack of ideas. Take Dell, for example. They can charge a lower price than IBM because they've innovated their operations. Southwest Airlines and Trader Joe's are also great examples. The common denominator is not that they're less expensive, it's that they've innovated in a way that customers value. They 'could' actually charge more and people would pay it because they're providing a quality product or service; but it would run counter to their established brand.

So WalMart is commoditizing brands? I don't think so. They're simply determining who's willing to be a commodity brand and who isn't. Levi's is prostituting itself to WalMart because it had already lost its brand value. Leaders who know the value of their brands, who know they're delivering value and that their brand has a loyal following, will not succumb to the WalMart commodity-confirming machine.

December 13, 2003

The recent conversation about semantics and 'words as symbols' got me thinking... I'd love a new word for brand. There's too much confusion about what this word is supposed to represent: the logo/tag line? the marketing campaign? the company in general? A study by The Brand Consultancy revealed that 50% of business professionals don't know what a brand means, and 90% don't know how to effectively represent their company's brand. Pretty scary. If anyone has another word for brand, let's hear it!

I discovered a gem in the archives of the Mutual Marketing blog on brand permeability, and enjoyed John Moore's observations about an experience at Orange (UK wireless co.):

I popped into an Orange shop this morning. I just wanted to look at the latest gizmos in case I wanted an upgrade. I arrived in a good mood and the Orange Phone Trainer and I exchanged enthusiastic "how-are-yous?" simultaneously. Since we'd both signalled enthusiasm, I thought I'd just launch in by asking if all the advertising hype about Phone Trainers at Orange was true. In return, I got a fairly convincing, unofficial warts-and-all explanation. The gist of it : actually, a lot of the people are gadget-freaks anyway and don't really need the sort of training they're given.

Now you and I can interpret this unofficial story any way we like. Control-freaks might say that Orange have failed to control their brand message. Actually, I thought this guy reflected quite well on Orange - he came over as honest and straightforward.

I feel I got an honest glimpse into a little slice of Orange (sorry) behind the advertising facade. And found it more engaging than their image-making.

At my last company (a phone company) we did qualitative research and found that 'honest and straightforward' was at the top of our customers' wish lists. The only problem was, the management team didn't subscribe to either the buyer-centric philosophy or being honest and straightforward. They were purchased last year by another company and are no longer in existence. Hmmm, go figure.

Brand permeability and transparency are now even more essential in today's connected economy, and one way to achieve that is to be very careful in matching new prospective hires to your brand promise. Every employee is a brand ambassador (wouldn't that be a good job title on business cards!). If the Orange employee referenced above wasn't an enthusiastic gear-head, John would have had a different -- perhaps neutral or negative -- experience. When we recognize that the Brand isn't a static entity but an IDEA that manifests through employees and acknowledged by the minds of customers (buyers, partners, etc.), that's when we begin to build an authentic brand.

December 12, 2003

I asked Chris Lawer about the difference between customer-centricity and buyer-centricity. Just semantics? Here's his answer:

I was asked by Jennifer Rice of Brand Mantra, what is the difference between customer-centricity (CC) and buyer-centricity (BC)? Never one to refuse a challenge, here is my late night attempt to answer!!
It can be semantics but sometimes we need new language to distinguish new thinking and concepts, So my summary is that BC is the link (hence PATCH) between customer-centric and Support Economy (www.thesupporteconomy) thinking. Basically it argues that businesses, even customer-centric ones, dont serve people as individuals and address the value-gaps we have - time, attention, knowledge, privacy, trust - which are marketer- and commerce-created.
The only way to address these forms of intangible value is to step outside of our organisational mindsets and put ourselves totally in the frame of people as individuals. Customer-centricity tries to do this but it is still geared to selling more stuff - done BY the orgn TO the consumer to max the orgs goals, and not looking at things the other way around - which naturally implies an inversion in the marketing process - hence "reverse marketing"

I like this answer since it relates to my last post on acquisition versus attraction. Since words are abbreviations for concepts, new concepts require the use of new or different word choices. Customer-centric, although an improvement over company-centric, still can treat customers as objects to be acquired (see last post). Buyer-centric requires companies to view their brand from the outside-in.

Chris Lawer had some great comments about an opinion piece by Scott MacStravic on capitalistic conceptions of customers. Scott's position is that companies will either treat customers as objects, subjects or partners.

Object

Modern marketing, indeed, market capitalism itself, treat customers as objects to be attracted, retained, developed and “mined” as exploitable resources for the benefit of the firm. CRM has instituted a new era of “scientific” exploitation, aiming to “manage” customers, demand chains, interactions and transactions to continuously improve the effectiveness and efficiency of sales, marketing and customer service functions.

Subject
Consumers are deemed to be tiring of both traditional marketing and CRM with their exploitative aims and devices. Rather than let sellers control marketing and sales communications, consumers are taking over, with phone and spam lists attempting to deny sellers access to consumers, permission marketing controlling whom they will listen to, TiVo and remote controls “zapping” TV commercials, and other techniques enabling consumers to dramatically decrease the numbers of commercial communications they are forced to attend. Instead, consumers are going online in droves to search out independent, objective information about available offerings, controlling when, how and where they learn about sellers and their products.

Partner
The “partnership” model envisions sellers and buyers sitting on the same side of the table, working to solve a problem or achieve a goal for both parties simultaneously, i.e. realize WIN/WIN rather than WIN/win or win/lose outcomes... When major transactions are involved, and consumers wish to do more than rely on others -- for independent comparisons of sellers’ options, for consumer agent expertise in handling the whole affair, or for “solution assembly” by trusted sellers – a partnership model may apply.

I like Chris' comment that buyer-centric relationships are fluid and can shuffle between subject and partner depending on the scope and size of the customer problem. And the knowledge gained from the partner relationship can and should be used to make simple transactions more seamless.

Overall I thought Scott's views were right on... although I have to disagree with the use of the word "attracting" customers in the definition of Customer as Object. Perhaps this is just a semantic difference, but I find that Customer-Object companies use the term "acquire" rather than "attract." One cannot acquire a customer in the same fashion as one acquires a company. Acquire is the ultimate Customer-Object term, and though customer accounts and information can be temporarily gained through a corporate acquisition, customer "ownership" does not transfer (there is no such thing) and neither does customer loyalty. If the acquiring company doesn't meet or exceed customer expectations, those customers will defect.

I contend that Customer Attraction is the corporate philosophy that will be successful in the new Customer-Subject/Partner marketplace: its emphasis is on learning customer needs and delivering a true value proposition that catches the eyes of those customers who are seeking solutions to their needs. I suppose you could say that this is still Customer-Object mentality, but if that's the case, then it follows that singles shouldn't make themselves more attractive in order to catch the eye of a potential mate. A customer must first be attracted in order to become a Partner. And a customer's expectations must be met or exceeded in order to be 'retained' in either Subject or Partner status.

December 11, 2003

Kudos to Chris Lawer for an excellent, thought-provoking white paper entitled, "ValuePATCH: A framework for building positive brand, marketing and customer context". A quick scan of the contents (and diagrams! I love diagrams) has gotten me pretty jazzed to spend some time digesting -- and hopefully contributing to -- this open-source tool.

After reading through my recent posts, I realized that I've been on a brand-bashing kick. Does anyone out there do it right? Since I have computers on my mind, I must say that I continue to be a huge fan of Apple. I stopped using Apple computers many years ago when I couldn't send attachments to clients on PCs. But I'm tempted to go back now that they've fixed that issue. Apple is not only a perfect example of a fully operationalized brand, it also (from what I hear) is the most reliable computer on the market. Reliable, easy to use, a distinctive personality that's communicated not only in advertising (Think Different) but in the actual product, an evangelical customer base... I could go on. You get the point. I'd love comments from you... let's hear your vote for favorite brand.

Thought you'd get a kick out of my CompUSA drama... my Sony computer kept crashing, so I took it back to CompUSA for repair. A week later I'm told that they ran a 'scan disk' and my hard drive seemed fine... which (to them) meant that the problem was caused by a software issue. And software isn't covered under the warranty. So I ran the recovery CDs myself, and after my computer crashed a few more times I paid an independent tech a few hundred dollars to discover that it wasn't the software, it's (apparently) the motherboard. So, back to CompUSA to fix a problem that they should have caught the first time.

I informed the manager that I need a loaner computer (again). He knew I had an XP; he also knew that I needed to load a bunch of software. I brought the loaner back to my office and start to load Office XP... only to discover that he'd given me a computer with Office2000 OS and no CD drive. Hmmm. When I called to tell him that the computer was not usable for me, he said, "Well, we do have a loaner XP in the back that the tech wanted to give you, but we didn't want to make you wait since it wasn't ready yet." So... waiting for 15 minutes was somehow better than giving me the wrong item and making me drive back and forth to their store? I'm really missing the logic here.

I share this story in a branding blog to illustrate how essential employees are to your brand. Skimp on salaries and training and you'll end up with rocket scientists like the folks at my local CompUSA. You're putting your entire brand in jeopardy. Hire the best people you can find for your front lines; these are the people who make the customer experience heaven or hell.

December 10, 2003

I happened upon Mark Stevens blog (author of Your Marketing Sucks) and he posted a comment about Ted, United's new low-cost carrier. He contends,

"How much stupid spending did United Airlines allocate to name its new low-cost carrier, “Ted?”

Too much! United has a brand. All it has to say is:

1) fare was $900
2) new fare is $350
3) market by market, fare by fare

Travelers want lower fares. The don’t need new names. In some cases, what passes for marketing –and the huge sums tossed at it–is as big a corporate “sin” as the mutual fund scandal."

So is creating a new brand a smart idea? To Mark's point, it's much more cost-effective to keep both carriers under the same brand umbrella to achieve cost efficiency and increased name awareness. However, a potential problem exists if the user experience is considerably different. What kind of brand expectations are held by United fliers, and can the low-cost carrier meet them? Probably not. If a division of a brand doesn't meet the user-experience expectations of the parent brand, it's probably a good idea to spin it off. I don't fly United so I'm speculating in this instance, but it reminds me of my last trip: I flew to D.C. a few weeks ago through Delta. Now when I think of flying Delta from Dallas to DC, I expect to fly in a fairly large aircraft. I ended up flying a small regional jet. Even though my overall experience turned out positive, I didn't appreciate the surprise of "this is not what I signed up for."

A brand is a promise of value to customers, and it sets a certain expectation. If a new product or service doesn't meet that expectation and/or caters to a different target audience, rebranding is probably a good option and not a 'corporate sin'. Comments are welcome -- what do you think?

Read a great story this morning on Dave St. Lawrence's blog that compared his experiences at two different wineries. At the first winery,

"We admired the appointments, drank our lattes and left, feeling that we had somehow missed the point of going there. It had been an interesting experience, to say the least, but not very satisfying, like going to the Museum of Fine Art for lunch. We recovered from our puzzlement by stopping in at the Jefferson winery on our way home. The wine drinkers in our party sampled everything in sight and we ambled out of there with arms full of wine bottles and other purchases."

A perfect example of the new brand imperative: creating customer experiences. A brand is no longer just for show, especially in today's society where customers have more choices than ever before. Successful companies take the time to understand the type of experiences that customers want. Reminds me of a gift that I once received that was more reflective of the giver... I had absolutely no desire or use for a see-through phone that lit up when it rang. I knew this person well enough to ask, 'did you really think I would like this?" and after a moment's reflection, he responded, "no, I guess you wouldn't like it. I just thought it was cool."

I'm not advocating a purely altruistic 'we gotta do whatever the customer wants whether we like it or not' philosophy. There's a happy win-win zone when you can create the kind of customer experience that's both in alignment with your values and vision, and also one that your customers love, pay for and refer others.

December 09, 2003

Now that I'm a blogger (and hooked on it), I started thinking about the future of branding in a distributed society. I was reminded of a mirror I bought a few years back -- its frame appeared to be carved mahogany and it looked pretty good over my mantle. Unfortunately the corner of the frame got chipped when I moved to a new condo, revealing... not wood, but painted pressboard.

So what does this have to do with marketing & branding, you ask? (It's a bit of a stretch, but go with me on this one.)

In the past, marketers were able promote a sanitized view of the brand through one-way communication. If the product was vaporware and customer service wasn't too hot, that was ok. They could slap some paint & varnish over the brand and proudly display it through an ad or brochure. It looked good enough to attract customers, and it could often win awards. I confess, I've done it plenty of times. When there's not much to work with, you do what you can.

But in a distributed society, especially with the advent of blogs and sites like e-pinions.com, customers brazenly chip pieces off your brand to see if it's authentic... then tell everyone about it. It's now becoming glaringly obvious if your company is the equivalent of painted pressboard. Branding no longer belongs to the marketing department; the brand must permeate the entire organization. Have you ever looked up a hotel on Travelocity.com? You read the official fluffy paragraph provided by the marketing department, then you read guest comments. Last time I was on the site, I'd say 90% of the comments conflicted with the marketing-speak. I ended up selecting the only hotel in the area with consistently positive reviews. I wonder how many of the hotels' execs actually surf around and read customer comments? I'd say very few.

All this to say that authenticity is new brand imperative. No surprise to web-savvy individuals, but it hasn't caught on yet in BusinessLand. It's just a matter of time.

December 08, 2003

My computer crashed today, and after I ran the Recovery CDs I was faced with the chore of reinstalling all my software. I had most of the CDs; the ones I didn't have I downloaded from the companies' web sites using the registration or installation codes. QuickBooks offers no ability to download their software... not only that, but they charged me $20 plus shipping to send me a new CD. What kind of policy is that? Is that my spanking for losing a CD? This is a perfect example of the need to evaluate corporate policies from the customer viewpoint and ask, 'will this policy advance or hinder customer relationships and trust -- Yes or no.'

As I'm reading Atlas Shrugged for the nth time, I started thinking about socially responsible branding (SRB). In Ayn's world, that phrase alone would be grounds to have me shot. But SRB, done right, is an authentic and rewarding way to earn an honest living. Let's look at the different options for SRB:

First, the real SRB is the company that allocates dollars to a good cause -- say The Body Shop or Ben & Jerrys -- and its corporate culture supports and reflects its support to that cause. The cause IS the brand. It's a win-win-win for the company, the cause and the customers. The brand is appealing to a distinct target audience that shares a common belief system with the company. The company makes money, the cause makes money and the customers feel good about their purchases. Hurray for everyone.

Another real SRB is the brand that doesn't align its business with a particular cause, but the brand's execs make decisions in favor of the brand's long-term rational self-interest. In other words, they understand the law of causality. They understand that the only way to survive and thrive in today's fickle economy is to be honest with customers, to overpromise and underdeliver, and to genuinely care about making their customers' lives easier or better. Customers are like dogs; they can usually smell it when companies are just in business to make money. Not that making money is wrong; but trying to make a buck without expending the effort to produce significant value is trying to cheat the system. It just doesn't work.

The anti-SRBs are the companies who make a show of giving to causes, but their business practices are not socially responsible. Let's go beyond toxic waste for a moment. I'm talking about "what can we get away with" mentality rather than "how can we make money by adding real value." I'm thinking of the phone companies who donate money to local charities while marking up surcharges by 500% because that's a great way to make more money without increasing their publicized basic line charge or adding any more value to justify the income. (Yes, that's right, many of those fees on your phone bill are federally condoned but not federally collected. Check out http://abtolls.com/information/readingbills.html for more info). And the phone companies have trapped themselves in a pricing war, so none of them want to be honest about how much your phone bill REALLY will be after you've switched providers to save money. I'm waiting for the day when a phone company will have the cajones to say: here's our basic line charge; yes, it's higher than some of the other companies but we're not making an exorbitant profit on taxes and surcharges; what's on this proposal is exactly what you're going to see on your first bill; and by the way, our prices are slightly higher because we're going the extra mile on customer service and reliability, and you'll get what you pay for. OK, I'll stop my rant on the phone industry... (if there are any phone companies out there who don't do this, my apologies and I'd love to know who you are)...

Bottom line, I believe that socially responsible branding is NOT about donating to causes. It's about taking the long-term view and asking, "what's the right thing to do" instead of "what can we get away with." It's about creating and using corporate values as a decision-making tool, a compass of sorts, instead of publishing a bunch of list of values because it's expected and it looks good, but doesn't truly drive the decision-making process. And if you can work out a way to support and communicate those values by contributing to a cause, great; that's solid reinforcement of your brand. But socially responsible branding starts with a value-oriented philosophy, not with an open checkbook. A donation does not a socially responsible brand make.

December 05, 2003

Emotional branding doesn't go very far with many number-focused execs. They don't care about brand personality or emotional connection; they want to know how this new brand position's going to boost their bottom line. And unfortunately many marketers don't have an answer for them. The only way brands have traditionally been measured is through awareness and perception studies. Traditional branding hasn't been response-oriented, but there's no reason why it can't be.

Think about it. If a brand evolves to better communicate and deliver on key customer needs, then we should see the following take place: decreased need for special promotions, because customers will be more willing to pay full price; increased inbound leads; increased customer satisfaction; more referrals, more buzz... and there are specific metrics that can benchmark and track improvements in these areas. But the key word here is "deliver." Without operationalizing the brand, the message is just a bunch of hot air. "Marketing black-hole syndrome" is the result -- which is why CFOs are not often big fans of the marketing department, and why they see the marketing budget as a cost center instead of an investment...

December 04, 2003

I started my company, Mantra Brand Communications, about 1.5 years ago. Most people ask me about the name, so I'll explain it here in my first post. Here's the definition of mantra from dictionary.com:
1. A sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities.
2. A commonly repeated word or phrase: “Today's edutainment software comes shrinkwrapped in the magic mantra: ‘makes learning fun.’”

Now, Hindu gods are not my specialty, so let's go with the words "sacred verbal formula repeated" combined with definition #2. A good brand is a short formula repeated over time, not just in advertising but throughout every department in your company. Your brand mantra is sacred; it's an abbreviation of your company's raison d'etre. Desirable by customers and distinct from your competition, your brand mantra is the rallying cry of employees and the driver of customer attraction and retention. Now that I think about it, it can be something of a magic spell; when your brand mantra is well defined, understood and measured, it can be the driver of your economic engine. I'll chat more about how a brand can boost your bottom line without spending more in advertising dollars in a future post. Lots to discuss on this here weblog...